Education Theories

Durkheim: social solidarity - individuals can learn to function together

Counter argument: The New Right say that our education system fails to create shared values. Murray and the Underclass

Parsons: a bridge between family and wider society - helps us move from our ascribed to achieved status

Counter argument: Feminists, Heaton and Lawson say that education teaches patriarchal views and not those that apply to everyone

Davis and Moore: a device for sorting and role allocation - inequality is necessary

Counter argument: this is not functional, the status of professionals that require qualifications are not that highly paid

Althusser: it is an ideological state apparatus - it controls peoples values so that the bourgeoisie can mantain their power

Counter argument: nowadays people are more aware and less easily 'brainwashed' because of technological developments (i.e. internet, mobile phones allow access to the outside world)

Bowels and Gintis: the hidden curriculum within schools prepares students for work in Capitalist societies

Counter argument: The New Right theorist, Murray, say that the problem with education is that it is run by the state rather than businesses and that Capitalism can help the education system develop through conflict

Heaton and Lawson: the hidden curriculum within schools teaches patriarchal values

Counter argument: Bowels and Gintis say that the hidden curriculum is in the interest of the ruling class rather than men

Walby: boys and girls are socialised into thinking that gender inequalities are justified

Counter argument: Marxist, Durkheim, say that education is beneficial for all groups, not just males, in school we learn values that bind all social groups in society together

Usher and Thompson: everyone has become individualised and education should embrace diversification

Agree: Durkheim says that schools teach students from all backgrounds to function together and are taught shared values

Buchanan and Tullock: schools should be ran like businesses - they need to meet the needs of parents so that there is more choice of schools for students (i.e. Faith schools, Academies)

Counter argument: Durkheim says schools need to teach students to work together in society, different institutions means no collective teaching

Hargreaves: schools should be ran like businesses - this way local businesses get to influence the education of their future employees

Counter argument: Althusser says there is no equal oppourtunity for the poorer students and making schools less comprehensive will let them down

Smith and Noble: deprived students dace tougher barriers to learning

Counter argument: social policies such as Pupil Premium means that poorer students have additional funding for necessary materials

Diane Raey: students who are disadvantaged are less likely to go to university, even if they do they tend to go to local ones which may be lower quality due to spending restrictions and the area they may live in

Counter argument: The New Right theorist, Murray, says that middle class students don't have any advantage in education, instead the lower classes lack the values to succeed

Howard: nutrition and diet affects student's health because they are less likely to have healthy diets

Counter argument: Free School Meals are given to everyone below the age of 5 and all students below a certain income

Sugarman: working class families lack the values needed to succeed in education - instant and deferred gratification

Counter argument: Marxist, Bourdieu, say that school is designed in a way that suits the Bougeoisie, they believe in Cultural Capital

Douglas: working class parents don't take as much of an interest in their children's education and attend less parents evenings

Counter argument: this theory ignores the fact that parents may have work commitments that they cannot afford to miss

Murray: welfare allows single parents families, young boys grow up without role models meaning they weren't socialised effectively

Counter argument: Hargreaves says that out-of-school facotrs don't have as much of an impact than in-school factors do, teachers have different expectations of the boys and tha's why they do badly

Bourdieu: the education system is better suited to middle class students so they have more of an advantage in school

Counter argument: Sugarman says that the lower class lack the values to succeed and the middle class students don't have any kind of advantage

Sullivan: research found that keeping up to date with politics and reading led to high achievemnt but attending museums and art galleries did not

Counter argument: Smith and Nobel say that material factors are a better explanantion as the access that the upper class students have to resources gives them an advantage

Bernstein: working class and Black and Minority Ethnic families have a restricted language code whereas middle class families use a more elbaborated code which allows the to understand the complicated language used in exams

Counter argument: Hargreaves says that teachers have different expectations of students because of their background

Keddie: middle class students are in top sets and the lower class students are in the lower sets, they are taught different material

Counter argument: Smith and Noble say that although poorer learners are treated differently they lack the materical resources that wealthier students have access to

Rosenthal and Jacobson: The Pygmalion effect - positive expectations lead to positive outcomes

Counter Argument: Murray says education is meritocratic - groups that fail aren't trying as hard

Willis: 'The Lads', an anti-school subculture, modelled themselves on their working class role models and were more masculine and viewed themselves as superior

Counter argument: this is outdated - the working class and middle classes are no longer so divided

Gillborn: teachers tend to be from white ethnic groups and stereotype the African-Caribbean groups, they therefore become more challenging and anti-authority

Agree: exclusion rates for black pupils are much higher - teachers are institutionally racist